Quite. Cummins' presence is just as annoying as the commentary team's hysteria though, so I'm not sure he "has to" be there.

As was said on twitter last night, Eddie and Stevo need to call the game and leave the rest to the others. Get rid of Cummins, stick Clarkey in a corner and we're good to go.

Agree. The thing is, I don't think Eddie & Stevo are capable of doing changing what they do.

Did I hear Terry O'Connor last night too?

So they had 5 blokes in the studio. Wells and Carney doing the analysis, and then the touchline reporter too chiming in. Fing hell.

Thank god the season has started again.i was starting to lose the will to live when visiting the VT in recent weeks.9 pages on the ref after one game,impressive start guys!

it was a ridiculous reaction but let's not make it out to be something it wasn't. He hit him front on.

One of the best tackles of the night after the Sutton hit on Brown.

Yeh, great hit on a guy who was stood remonstrating about a cheap shot on a teammate and who wasn't even looking..

We really don't, though. We really don't regularly see players being knocked unconscious by full-blooded reckless swinging arms flush to the jaw.

If Paddy hadn't been sent off, then the disciplinary would have given him 2 games or 1 for an EGP. As he was sent off and at an early stage it is possible he may get sending off sufficient given his record. Either way the decision will vindicate Child, as it will confirm his offence merits a short absence from the game.

(But then we will have another argument on how ridiculous the disciplinary decision was etc.)

I'm in no way condoning it. It was a petulant cheap shot but lets not start making things up about it.

I would have leaned towards a yellow card for the Ah Van incident, but I can understand Child making the decision he did. There was clear contact with the head of Charnley, with visible results, so there are grounds for a sending off and Child has to call it as he sees it. Not the decision I think I would have made, but fair enough.

I was disappointed to see Smith only get a yellow, though (not to mention Tomkins going completely unpunished for cleaning out Phelps). As I've always understood it, trips and kicks are automatic red cards, and rightly so - there's a weaselly dishonesty about that sort of behaviour that just runs counter to the spirit of rugby league (although I appreciate that this is out of character for Smith). The message from this game is that a mistimed challenge is a worse offence than a deliberate cheap shot. Regardless of the outcomes for the players on the receiving end, that's not how it should be.

Smith will have to use his EGP to stand any chance of playing in the WCC game against Brisbane since kicking carries a minimum of 2 matches.

i think you are overstating Ah Vans tackle, he was coming over the shoulder downwards and caught him, it happens fairly often. I have no problem with the sending off. It just wasn't a sending off last year and I doubt it will for the rest of the year. I hope it is though

Wow. Now the Video Refs are at it.

What the hell was that call??

Deary me.

These aren't just 50:50 calls that are not being picked up on, they are categorically wrong.

Not saying it was the right decision but did they just go with what Bentham initially called for? NO TRY tackled in air because they couldn't be 100% it was a try due to just one hand on the Saints players arm?

LOL, it's either a try or Catalan ball. Looked like a try to me, but how in gods name that is a goal line dropout only they can know.

Escare knocked the ball onto the Saints player.

Inside the in goal

Well done to Phil Bentham!

More penalising of offsides please!

The video ref decisions have been poor imo, but Bentham has been fine. Personally I would have got the yellow card out earlier (probably for Percival's offside), but he's got the vast majority of calls right. He called both of the video ref decisions as no tries, but tbf they are both impossible to call at full speed with one look.

Good summary.

Another new match official in the making.

Which I think highlights the problem of forcing the referee to make a call under these new rules. If he can make the call he makes it, if he can't he still has to.

I have already explained to you why this is a ludicrous summing up, so why are you repeating it?

He is a REFEREE. That means he HAS to "make a call". It's his job. You seem to assume that just because a ref goes to the VR, that must be because he "cannot make the call" but that is obviously wrong, for the simple reason that if there was no VR then the ref would have no choice but to "make the call".

I do not exclude the possibility that rarely there may just be some incident so obscured that the ref actually "cannot" make a call nor can any of his assistants - but such a case would be once every 25 years I think. And even then, you'd be wrong - because then his call would have to be "no try", under the rules, since if he literally saw no evidence on which he could rule a try was socred then he can't award a try. So in all cases he CAN, and DOES make the call. He may on occasion not be "certain" but that's just part and parcel of his job.

Previous seasons IMHO diminished the refs' authority by not adopting the present system. Changing the system so that the ref's decision must be upheld except where it is indisputably wrong is a big improvement.

A better question would be why are you following me from thread to thread making the same hysterical noises?


If you think a referee being unable to make a call comes around once every 25 years then you clearly don't watch much rugby league. As for his authority, it is no more diminished by the VR than it is by a touch judge making calls on the ball going into touch. We have at our disposal a specialist position in the VR who, like the touch judge, has advantages over the referee in particular decision making circumstances. When we have a VR the question of what decision a ref would have to make without a VR is totally irrelevant and, as I keep saying, unnecessarily restrictive.